ArticleScientific reports2025
Ethical considerations and robustness of artificial neural networks in medical image analysis under data corruption.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning Techniques for the Analysis of the Influence of Blood Gasometry Parameters on Acid-Base Homeostasis in Pediatric Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of Generative AI for the Creation of Patient Education Materials on Coronary Heart Disease: A Comparative Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medicine is one of the most sensitive fields in which artificial intelligence (AI) is extensively used, spanning from medical image analysis to clinical support. Specifically, in medicine, where every decision may severely affect human lives, the issue of ensuring that AI systems operate ethically and produce results that align with ethical considerations is of great importance. In this work, we investigate the combination of several key parameters on the performance of artificial neural networks (ANNs) used for medical image analysis in the presence of data corruption or errors. For this purpose, we examined five different ANN architectures (AlexNet, LeNet 5, VGG16, ResNet-50, and Vision Transformers - ViT), and for each architecture, we checked its performance under varying combinations of training dataset sizes and percentages of images that are corrupted through mislabeling. The image mislabeling simulates deliberate or nondeliberate changes to the dataset, which may cause the AI system to produce unreliable results. We found that the five ANN architectures produce different results for the same task, both for cases with and without dataset modification, which implies that the selection of which ANN architecture to implement may have ethical aspects that need to be considered. We also found that label corruption resulted in a mixture of performance metrics tendencies, indicating that it is difficult to conclude whether label corruption has occurred. Our findings demonstrate the relation between ethics in AI and ANN architecture implementation and AI computational parameters used therefor, and raise awareness of the need to find appropriate ways to determine whether label corruption has occurred.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.